The Republicans of old were not against infrastructure spending. Its the tea party numpties.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The Republicans of old were not against infrastructure spending. Its the tea party numpties.
You have to love white Americans; like they have the monopoly on "legal" immigration. If you ask the native Americans I doubt they'd agree any immigration was legal.
Also, the Spanish & Mexicans were in Florida and most of the western US before the whites arrived. So, in my mind it's immigration going full circle; the Mexicans were all over the western US, and now they're just coming back again- leaving out for a minute that the native populations are never coming back to their pre-Columbian numbers.
What laws did the natives have in place against immigration?
Remember whenever you're talking about turnout - there's over 5m votes left to count still.
That is just going to show us that Clinton got a lot of votes in California which is expected.
Interesting you used Japan as the example rather than China, who have built a vast network of high speed rails to the middle of nowhere.
Which just shows again how unfair the electoral college is with California only getting 55 instead of 100s
Right, so the refrain of the last few days that "she lost 7m Obama votes" probably won't be accurate. She lost a lot, but not that many. And Trump likely got more than McCain and Romney.
Depends mostly on what kind of benefits package your employer offers. I pay around 100$ per month for my family, but that includes about a 1000$ yearly reimbursement for not smoking. On top of that my employer puts around 1500$ every year in my HSA account, which rolls over from year to year and it's my money to keep if I leave the company.
On the other hand, thanks to Obamacare uninsured people must pay a fine for not having insurance, or pay high premiums through the marketplace. But most people already know that Obamacare is a total failure.
The Elections were always about representing Americans from all walks of life and from both rural and urban areas. That is why we elect our President via the Electoral college so all have a voice.
The number of votes was never the issue.
The number of votes was never the issue.
This is BS. The electoral college penalises larger states. This argument played out in the 1960s when the Supreme Court forced all branches of government to accept the principle of one man one vote - a principle that the electoral college violates.
This is how The Founding Fathers determined the President should be elected. I agree with them.
It would be grossly unfair to have urbanites for example to silence the voices of rural people.
For more examples of the havoc these types of systems cause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009_(Tamil_Nadu)
42% vs 39%, but seats are 27:12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
44% to 44.8% but the inority party gets majority seats (321-295)
There is no silencing involved. If one person gets one vote....that's it. Nothing more or less. I find the silencing argument especially mad because you have an actual case of a majority of people who wishes are disobeyed here: literally more voters are unhappy with this election's outcome than are happy.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan_Legislative_Assembly_election,_2013
Votes: 46%-34%. Seats 163-21.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2009_(Tamil_Nadu)
42% vs 39%, but seats are 27:12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
44% to 44.8% but the inority party gets majority seats (321-295)
There is no silencing involved. If one person gets one vote....that's it. Nothing more or less. I find the silencing argument especially mad because you have an actual case of a majority of people who wishes are disobeyed here: literally more voters are unhappy with this election's outcome than are happy.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan_Legislative_Assembly_election,_2013
Votes: 46%-34%. Seats 163-21.
It's the house representatives job to be the voice of people.
Well the worry is that without the electoral college the Democrats would just post up in California and New York the whole election and Republicans would be in Texas. It would lessen the need for politicians to focus on the whole country.
And how long they would be the 6th biggest economy after the corporations move back to US?
You do realise we are talking about the United States of America.
It has worked so far. In any case if they really want to change it, they can have a Constitional Amendment. I highly doubt it will happen.
you can also say why have 2 senators from each state when the highly populated states should have more.
That is why there is the House of Representatives.
correct.
California and New York have less than 20% of the US population. You'll need to reach across the board to get a majority.
I was just making a point about proportional representaion. Then why have the Senate?
Well, ths system has given he US (and the world) Bush over Gore and Trump voer Clinton. If global warming continues along this path, the electoral college will have played a non-insignificant negative role in world history.
Yes you can. But IMO it's ok to have half of one branch to represent small state interests. It's another to have another whole branch mercy to them.
The worry is they would focus on CA/NY....well the current worry is they must focus on OH/NC. One person one vote means no swing states, and a focus on everyone. Like the 45% of Texans who voted blue and are completely voiceless.
'51 *shudders*.
Anyone designing the system from scratch these days picks a run-off system on a popular vote.
I know more about Japan that's why it's my example.
But yes, China too. It's a pretty fundamental strategy to stimulate the economy.
I don't buy this conservative right-wing Trump nonsense. I still believe that he has basically ran his campaign as a reality show, and he knew the exact things to say in order to mobilize the votes that would get him elected. Yes, I think he will be conservative on issues like immigration, national security, guns etc. But at the same time I believe he will be liberal on other social issues, and I won't be surprised if he'd push for increasing the minimum wage and replacing Obamacare with a healthcare plan that actually works.
Also I believe that his plan to bring jobs back will work. He is a deal maker and that's something he can actually be good at. Or maybe I'm just being over optimistic.
Also I believe that his plan to bring jobs back will work. He is a deal maker and that's something he can actually be good at. Or maybe I'm just being over optimistic.
This has been addressed above.
Bush/Gore was sort of unique. The SC should never have got involved. But still Gore did not get enough votes to overcome the hurdle. That was not Nader's fault btw.
Hillary simply had a poor strategy. She took WI for granted for example. Plus she was a very damaged candidate.
Good luck trying that with a Republican House and Senate.
Why is it unfair ?
How are urbanites silencing anyone if everyone has the same vote?
Or do you mean rural people deserve more of a say?
Because Californian get a fraction of the vote compared to someone from the rural states.
What happened to one man one vote?
And California would always elect a president? Is like having Germany dictating the rest of Europe.
Minnesota where I live usually declares immediately for the Democrat candidate once polls close. It too almost 15 or more hours to come in for Hillary. She marginaly won. They can analyse why that happened.
No, California only has about 12% of the US population. Incidentally Texas has about 10%
Gore and Hillary's losses can be put down to many many things. The fact remains that they were more popular than their opponents. And their opponents gained power. Or, to put it in the words you used, that the majority was silenced.
Again, fcusing on CA/NY would be useless since their not-insignificant Republican voters would come into play as well. And I'm repeating myself: everyone would count equally. Like a civics lesson.
Yes, you can analyse MN's votes, and that'll be fun. But none of this remotely addresses the fact that people have been disenfranchised.
Finally, for your founding fathers argument
I mean, if that's what your ideal system of govt is...fine.
Merkel pretty much became the leader of the free world on Tuesday.are not Germany doing just that?
Why Britain went Brexit I suppose.
No. But no one should be ignored.
Though in the past I have thought that one vote one man for the Presidency would be the way to go. The US is primarily an agricultural nation. We are a rural country. I think the Founding Fathers in their wisdom got this right.
So long as we are the most powerful country on earth, The President of the United States will always be the leader. imo Bush was a far weaker President than whatever we may think of Trump.
In any case, he has not even been inaugurated yet.
How exactly will the rural people be ignored if they get the same vote?
Or do you just think they are in an elite class that deserves more say?
Not if he goes ahead with the isolationist policies. You'll remain a country everyone fears and gives a wide berth to due to your military might.
A world leader you'll not be when he pulls US out of NATO and abandons Japan to fend for themselves.
- Status